Bombay High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner whose house was demolished for being an illegal construction despite the existence of an operative status quo order, the Division Bench of A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata*, JJ., dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner could neither prove his ownership of the land nor the fact that the structure was 50 years old. The Court also held that one could not claim defence of illiteracy to do an illegal act.
Background
It was contended that the petitioner had been residing on his plot since 1975. Due to the dilapidated condition of his house, he demolished the same in 2022 and reconstructed a multi-storied building as per his requirement. He claimed that since he was illiterate, he sought no permission for either the demolition or the reconstruction of the said premises from the relevant competent authorities.
Subsequently, the petitioner received a notice under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, from respondent 4- Assistant Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, but he did not respond. Instead, after a few months, he instituted a civil suit against the officer of respondent 2- Controller of Unauthorised Construction (U) CIDCO Ltd., and respondent 4, seeking to quash the afore-mentioned notice. In the said suit, the Civil Court directed the parties to maintain the status quo regarding the property. Pending the disposal of the aforesaid suit, the petitioner received another notice from respondent 2.
Allegedly, despite the status quo order, respondent 2 proceeded to demolish the petitioner’s house under the pretense of implementing the directions of the High Court in a PIL. Since the entire house was not demolished and a substantial portion remained, the petitioner amended his suit to impugn the second notice as well. However, the said suit was unconditionally withdrawn.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed another civil suit against respondents 2 and 4, seeking a declaration of title to the land and his residential premises. On 18-05-2024, the Civil Court passed an ad-interim order directing maintenance of the status quo regarding the property. On 10-12-2024, the status quo order was extended up to 9-01-2025. Despite the aforesaid order, on 18-12-2024, respondent 2 demolished the entire property.
Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking compensation of Rs 5 Crores and restoration of possession.
Analysis
The Court remarked that a citizen who was seeking a right under the Constitution was obliged to perform his duties as a citizen. In the garb of being illiterate, the petitioner sought to blatantly violate the law.
Regarding the petitioner’s reliance on In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291, the Court stated that the Supreme Court neither intended to nor permitted a citizen to construct illegally. The Supreme Court did not depart from the dictum “illegality is incurable” as held in K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers, Town Municipal Council, (1974) 2 SCC 506.
The Court noted that apart from the bald statements in the petition, the petitioner had failed to provide any supporting documents to prove his ownership. If the petitioner could file civil suits for an injunction, he could approach an architect, but he chose not to. The Court remarked that the petitioner followed a widespread belief that one can first construct and then regularise it if any notice gets issued by any competent authority. The Court stated, “We find that this belief is often true as we have seen the rise in slums and illegal constructions in the State of Maharashtra over a period of time, and no action has been taken to raze them. It is this inaction by the state authorities that fuels the desires of the persons like petitioners.”
The Court referred to Monish Chintaman Patil v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 918, wherein a co-ordinate bench of the Court dealt with a similar argument and emphatically rejected it. The Court also referred to the recent case Rajendra Kumar Barjatya v. U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3767, wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the settled law that illegality could not be cured.
The Court held that considering the settled law and the admitted fact that the petitioner, who has neither proved the ownership of the land nor has proved the existence of the structure for 50 years, cannot claim any equities and expect the Court to believe his statements. The Court further noted that a petitioner cannot simply seek defence on the ground of illiteracy to perform illegal acts. If these petitions were entertained, there would be utter lawlessness.
Thus, holding that it was bound by the law enumerated by the Supreme Court and in agreement with the observations of the co-ordinate bench, the Court dismissed the petition.
Noting that such petitions are filed only to take a chance and obtain interim reliefs by misguiding the Courts, the Court stated that it was inclined to impose a cost of Rs 5 Lakhs on the petitioner to deter such class of petitioners, but did not do so.
[Hanuman Jairam Naik v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 362 of 2025, decided on 25-02-2025]
*Judgment authored by Justice Kamal Khata
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Tapan Thatte
For the respondent: Shahaji Shinde and AGP Snehal Jadhav
